I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate on this Bill. It is often only those of us who come from a coastal community who stand up to express our thoughts on such an issue. That should not be the case because, as an island, what happens to the sea affects us all and we can all play a role in product development and make a contribution to issues covered by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources – dumping at sea in this case. The Bill was first introduced in 2000 and refers back to the 1996 Act. It is a pity it has taken so long to make its way through the House but if it has been improved in that time that is an acceptable excuse.
The Bill is an important regulatory measure and will ensure that only material judged by experts to be suitable will be disposed in the sea. That mainly relates to port dredging and it is important that anything that is allowed to be dumped will be disposed of in an appropriate location and in an appropriate manner. That sounds simple but such locations may not be easily found. People see the ports and port dredging coming to the fore and many think they are in for a windfall to develop dredging. I can give a list of those who would be interested to the Department if it is inclined to accept it.
I am glad Government Departments are now involved in the licensing process. It is an indication of the slow pace of the Bill that the Department for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands has been replaced by the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism and the heritage portfolio has been taken on by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government since its publication. The sooner we bring this Bill to a conclusion, before having to start again, the better it will be.
It makes sense that there is now a Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Department was already responsible for water quality and now covers natural and archaeological heritage and radiological protection. Those dealing with the various areas must co-ordinate their work because although issues under the remit of one Department can be interrelated, that does not always mean there is co-ordination at all levels. From what I have heard about this Bill, that level of co-ordination can and should exist. The fact that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is incorporated to address the implications for industry is also to be welcomed.
It is important that people come forward as soon as they intend to make an application to dump for whatever reason. In terms of rivers and lakes, people sometimes underestimate the reaction an action can cause. Sometimes people fail to realise that putting something in one part of a river can have a knock-on effect in another part of it. If people plan to dredge or dump, it is very important that they avail of the expertise of the Department's heritage and planning division as early as possible. I agree wholeheartedly with the provisions in this regard.
Electronic publishing of permits is provided for under section 2. As public representatives, we often hear from people who have only discovered that something was planned after it has happened. People may not know where certain applications stand. In the interests of the openness, transparency and accountability to which we aspire, it is very important that the Department's website has been up and running since 1 January 2001. I am glad that those who are not electronically minded will have the facility to acquire information free of charge. This is an issue in terms of many freedom of information requests. This means that those who are not computer orientated or electronically literate are not excluded.
The fact that there is a statutory obligation to advertise applications is also important. When I read the provision that the advertisement must be made in a local newspaper, I think of my area. When things are advertised in a local paper, people often remark that the paper chosen is not particularly local to them. It might be local to the county, but not to the particular area in question. I would like to see the provision amended to refer to the "relevant" local newspaper which should be ascertained on a geographical basis. The best selling papers in a particular area should be determined as those are the local newspapers. People have come to me in respect of advertisements, not necessarily for permits but other things, which have appeared in local papers with limited sales in the most relevant geographical areas.
It is important that people have the chance to say what they think about applications. The 21 day period provided for in the Bill is necessary to provide everyone with the right to have his or her say. A person's opinion should be considered and accommodated and just concerns must be dealt with and be seen to be dealt with. I am therefore pleased that even the commentary will be made available under section 3 of the Bill. Not only will the comments be posted to applicants for a response, they will be put on public display to demonstrate the manner in which decisions are made. This means there will be a great deal of openness on the issue of permits. If, as the Minister said, things are working satisfactorily at the moment, I trust they will work even more satisfactorily once this Bill's provisions are implemented.
There have been no delays in the awarding of permits and we should ensure that no delays result from the enactment of this legislation. Dredging in Buncrana would be in the interests of the RNLI, the proposed car ferry and marina and many other activities on Lough Swilly. However, the lack of a foreshore licence has delayed dredging. On one side I hear the promise that there will be no delays, but on the other I listen to those in the marine sector of the local council explaining how they are treated. We do not expect delays, yet no progress has been made a couple of years after the process was started.
It is important that port and harbour plans are in place in respect of dredging and dumping at sea. The Minister has referred to five year plans in relation to which Greencastle and Buncrana both spring to mind. There are major plans for the development of Greencastle which incorporate dredging, but they are pointless if the finance to realise them is not forthcoming. The dredging moneys for Greencastle are the responsibility of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and those for Buncrana, Donegal County Council. While there is a slight difference, I assume the money will come ultimately from the same source, the Department of Finance.
It is great to be aspirational in terms of making five year plans. People often come to me seeking multi-annual funding and a facility to allow them to budget multi-annually. If the money is not there to carry out five year plans, it is better to be honest and to tell people to forget about dredging and plans for the future. This is not to ignore the fact that significant money has been available in the Department responsible for marine matters in the recent past. When I entered the Oireachtas seven and a half years ago, pitiful amounts of money were available to the Department of the Marine for pier development, har bour strengthening and boat building programmes. I have been very proud to see the development work on wrecked structures right around the peninsula on which I live and boats and major craft are now able to land there. While investment in this regard has been very important, there are ongoing issues in relation to dredging. If there is a five year plan of work, there must be a five year programme in terms of the allocation of money.
Section 1 of the Bill updates the definition of "harbour authority" in the 1996 Act for enforcement and related purposes. The new definition takes account of the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2000. I would like someone to explain how things stand in respect of Buncrana Harbour where there is an issue in relation to the harbour authorities. Who is in control and what are the plans in respect of the harbour and the old harbour authority?
The 1996 Act banned incineration at sea and the dumping of radioactive substances, toxic, harmful and noxious substances and materials. The Act also extended the limit of Irish jurisdiction in relation to dumping at sea from 12 nautical miles offshore to 200 nautical miles in line with the continental shelf. It is important to penalise any person who dumps without a permit and the Bill provides for a monetary penalty and-or imprisonment.
One cannot look at the issue of the acquisition of dumped material, particularly of a highly toxic nature, without considering Sellafield. It would be good to think we could impose a fine or prison sentence in regard to some of the activity there. Those of us on the northern and eastern coasts have concerns about Sellafield. We would like to see continuing efforts to expedite the closure of the facility.
On the issue of the days at sea and the argument presented about area six off the north-west coast, because of depleting cod stocks many fishermen are not allowed into a certain box. There is a blanket ban in that regard.
Coming back to what I said about dumping in appropriate locations and in an appropriate manner, according to the Minister dumping will not be allowed where fisheries, important resources or natural or archaeological sites might be damaged. Sites will be monitored before and after the dumping takes place. An "appropriate location for dumping" assumes an individual knows about the location in the first place. How much work went into ascertaining the location of these appropriate locations? We are saying that dumping cannot take place where fish stocks are present, yet we are only now starting to work out officially where the cod stocks are located with a view to presenting our case to Europe to ensure the ban on the days at sea can be lifted. Fishermen know from their own local knowledge that some of the areas they are not permitted to enter never had and never will have cod. Their knowledge of the appropriate location of fish stocks has not been properly documented and the crude instrument that is the number of days at sea arose out of that. I am concerned about how we define an appropriate location and I would like to know the work that went into that. If somebody has that information, perhaps they would let the fisheries section in on it so that it can assist us to help our fishermen in respect of the current days at sea argument in Europe.
I was interested to read that there will be a policy of not allowing the dumping of ships or aircraft at sea. Obviously such dumping is not a good idea because it must have an impact on the marine environment. They are not just wonderful locations in which fish can swim. There are obvious environmental impacts from such material being dumped at sea. I am aware also that much work has already been done in regard to First World War and Second World War boats and planes that now rest at the bottom of our seas. I understand there is a chart showing them but do we know the location of all those boats and planes? Are we considering the damage currently being caused by them?
When we talk about dumping at sea we are really talking about the environment and trying to improve water quality for all life in the sea. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that raw sewage continues to flow into many of our rivers. I recognise that significant moneys have been spent by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government but my home town does not have a sewerage scheme and most of the sewage from the towns on the Foyle continues to flow into the Foyle estuary. That is not uncommon along the rest of the coast and it is a problem that must be addressed. I am not blaming the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in that regard but I encourage people in these towns to work with the councils and the Department on identifying sites as soon as possible to ensure the progress being sought by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government can take place. The rows about where facilities should be located prevent the resolution of the desperate problem of raw sewage flowing into very good rivers. I am under the impression that it is not always a case of the Department not having the money. I am aware that in relation to Donegal significant moneys are earmarked for this purpose.
I want to refer to a particular type of dumping being imposed on us in the Foyle region, namely, wind turbines. There are 85 30-storey wind turbines in the middle of the Foyle region and I reiterate my objection to them. I am not against wind energy; there are wind turbines on hills in front of my house. These wind turbines will be a possible disaster for the Foyle, not only in terms of the visual impact but in terms of our marine environment. We do not know the impact they will have on our very successful salmon fishery. I object to the fact that the Crown Estates Commission thought it had the right to give away the licence and allow these facilities to be put in place. I trust that will be parked for some considerable time, possibly indefinitely, but should one of these wind turbines fall down, the issue of decommissioning, which is talked about in relation to most parts of Ulster, will also have an effect on Donegal. I do not want wind turbines to be dumped in the sea in front of my house. I am declaring an interest in that regard.